I just read the Open definition and was left a little confused regarding the claim of compatibility with the definition of “free software” by the FSF and “free cultural works” (as acknowledged by Creative Commons).
Both FSF and Creative Commons acknowledge an author’s right to sell their work. FSF-free software is only free to people who have access to them. This is also (at least to my understanding) why software I wrote and only I have access to is trivially FSF-free (barring any work-for-hire laws).
This why I was very confused when I read:
The work must be provided as a whole and at no more than a reasonable one-time reproduction cost […].
The summary section makes it sound as if provision at no (or little) cost is part of FSF’s and CC’s definition of “free” which, to my understanding, it isn’t.
I may have gotten that wrong, so I am really interested to hear your thoughts on that!